U.S. 'Golden Dome': A glimmering shield or a blow to global stability?

Editor's note: Xu Ying, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a Beijing-based international affairs commentator. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On May 20 local time, the U.S. President Donald Trump picked a design for his "Golden Dome" missile defense system, a multilayered, $175 billion defense program, marking the very first time that the U.S. will put weapons in space.

Touted as a "revolutionary leap" in homeland defense, the program is envisioned to leverage a network of hundreds of satellites circling the globe with space-based sensors and interceptors, including components in the low Earth orbit, to intercept both ballistic and cruise missile threats.

In the long arc of global security policy, the unveiling of this initiative marks a defining moment – not merely in the context of American military planning, but in the evolution of strategic stability and the geopolitical architecture of space.

The core premise of the "Golden Dome" is not novel. For decades, the United States has pursued variations of missile defense – through Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, Bill Clinton's Theater Missile Defense programs, and the George W.Bush administration's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Yet, unlike its predecessors, the "Golden Dome" represents an unapologetically expansive vision: a globalized system that aspires to extend American protection to the highest altitudes and farthest reaches of its adversaries' missile arcs. What distinguishes this latest iteration is not only the scope of its ambition, but the geopolitical moment in which it arises.

To many observers, the "Golden Dome" is less a shield than a sword: a system designed not merely to protect the U.S. homeland, but to enable American freedom of action under the illusion of invulnerability. In this light, the initiative is seen as profoundly destabilizing. It threatens the foundational logic of mutual deterrence by potentially disarming an adversary's second-strike capability. In doing so, it undermines the fragile but essential equilibrium that has preserved strategic stability among nuclear-armed states for over half a century.

The inclusion of space-based elements in the "Golden Dome" marks a particularly dangerous departure. Outer space has long been governed by a tenuous consensus – enshrined in treaties and customary norms – that it should remain a domain reserved for peaceful exploration and scientific advancement. Militarization of this domain, especially through kinetic or directed-energy systems designed to intercept or disable enemy assets, shatters that consensus. It sets a precedent for a new frontier of military competition – one that is less visible, less accountable, and potentially more volatile than any terrestrial arms race. This development is not occurring in a vacuum. Other countries will have to invest in their own counter-space capabilities. The "Golden Dome," far from deterring conflict, may thus act as a catalyst for an accelerated race to weaponize the cosmos.

Beyond the technological and strategic concerns, the "Golden Dome" also presents a host of political and diplomatic challenges. Its unilateral conception and rollout, without prior consultation or engagement with allies or competitors, signals a breakdown in the cooperative ethos that traditionally underpins arms control. It has provoked not only vocal opposition from China and Russia, but also unease among American allies, many of whom fear being dragged into a destabilizing rivalry that they neither sought nor sanctioned. The absence of international consensus, and the sidelining of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations or the Conference on Disarmament, erodes the normative framework that has so far constrained the militarization of space.

The Trump administration's rhetorical posture – marked by assertive nationalism and a preference for unilateral solutions – compounds this problem. By framing the "Golden Dome" as a purely defensive measure while disregarding the broader security concerns of other states, it alienates potential partners and emboldens adversaries. Perceptions matter. If one nation believes that another is seeking to neutralize its deterrent capabilities, its logical response will not be acquiescence, but escalation. Deterrence theory has long recognized this: stability depends not on superiority, but on mutual vulnerability.

On top of all these concerns, the technological feasibility of the "Golden Dome" is itself questionable. Despite decades of investment, missile defense remains a profoundly uncertain enterprise. The physics of interception – especially against maneuverable hypersonic targets or in space environments crowded with decoys –  are daunting. Systems that promise perfect protection often deliver little more than psychological reassurance. Worse, they can engender strategic overconfidence, tempting policymakers into adventurism under the mistaken belief that escalation can be controlled or confined.

Furthermore, the "Golden Dome" could imperil the very foundations of global arms control. It sends a signal that the United States is no longer interested in restraint, in mutual accommodation, or in the slow and imperfect mechanisms of negotiated disarmament. It encourages other nations to withdraw from existing treaties, to accelerate their own weapons programs, and to view international norms as disposable.

And yet, the situation is not beyond repair. History has shown that even at the height of great power rivalry, diplomacy can prevail. The Cold War was punctuated by periods of intense dialogue, culminating in landmark agreements such as the Outer Space Treaty. These achievements were possible not because the underlying tensions disappeared, but because states recognized that mutual survival required mutual restraint. The "Golden Dome," for all its dangers, could serve as a wake-up call – a prompt to reinvigorate global dialogue on missile defense, strategic stability, and the governance of outer space.

To avert a future where satellites become the targets of preemptive strikes, where space debris multiplies catastrophically, and where mistrust calcifies into open hostility, the United States must recommit to the principles of transparency, reciprocity, and international engagement. That does not mean abandoning national defense. It means recognizing that true security is collective, not unilateral. It means pursuing innovation with humility, and power with responsibility.

In conclusion, the "Golden Dome" is not merely a technical project. It is a geopolitical act, with consequences that extend far beyond American shores. It raises fundamental questions about the nature of deterrence, the future of space, and the kind of international order we wish to inhabit.

Whether it becomes a bulwark against chaos or a spark that ignites it will depend on the wisdom with which it is managed – and the willingness of nations to look beyond the glint of gold to the fragile balance beneath. As the ancient Chinese saying goes, "Weapons are instruments of ill omen; the sage uses them only when there is no choice" – a reminder that true security lies not in domination, but in disciplined restraint.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)